Navigation

The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.

Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help end theism, dogma, violence, hatred, and other irrationality. Buy an Xbox 360 -- PS3 -- Laptop -- Apple

Interesting legal question

Posted on: March 14, 2012 - 5:39pm

Beyond Saving

Posts: 4873

Joined: 2007-10-12

Offline

Interesting legal question

It is a fantastically entertaining year for the Supreme Court. I don't think there have been this many interesting legal questions in one year during my lifetime. Today I would like to consider Astrue v. Capato which will be argued on March 19th. The question is whether a child born two years after the fathers death through in vitro fertilization qualifies for survivor benefits under social security.

My initial reaction is WTF of course not. In many ways, the idea that someone would even try is an example of the entitlement cultural problem we have. You don't "accidentally" have a baby through in vitro. To pay for the expense of doing so and then turning around and applying for benefits right away strikes me as absurd. Apparently the SSA agreed with me and denied the claim. On the third appeal the Third Circuit court ruled that the children (they were twins) were the children of the deceased father under social security law and therefore qualified for benefits.

Legally, I think the mother trying to get the benefits might have a strong argument just following the letter of the law. However, this is obviously a situation that was not considered when the law was passed in which case the Court might be willing to look past the letter of the law and consider the intent which can be interpreted as meant to provide benefits to children under 18 in the event of an unexpected death of a parent. In this case the death occurred before the pregnancy occurred. It should make for an interesting argument. I suspect that if SCOTUS rules in the mother's favor Congress will pass a law addressing this situation, but then again maybe we have a new entitlement. Freeze your sperm so your wife can pop out a kid when she needs money....

If a child is born two years after the death of the father are they really that man's child? Should they qualify for the same benefits children conceived before the fathers death receive?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

How ridiculous! It's people like her that give the whole system a bad rap. I'm not sure what to say about the court ruling tho. I'm no lawyer. Are their hands are tied and required to go by the letter? If so, then I guess we would just have to say that one slipped thru the cracks and get rules amended right away. Then she would be denied upon her next review. As you probably remember, I am a new recipient of ssdi, so I can only speak intelligently about those benefits. Disability is not guaranteed for life. Reviews come around 1,3, and 5-7 years, based on likeliness of recovery. I'm not sure about ssi, but I would say that it is not indefinite either. She's worse than the women who have nine damn kids on purpose just to get more benefits. It's sad. There are people out there that really need and deserve these benefits. From my experience the ssa is widely misunderstood as well. Although initially they are strict as to who gets their legal benefits, once they have determined that you do qualify, they try to get you the most money as quickly impossible. It's a slow process to get to that point because they have to weed out so many people like these trying to freeload and scam their way thru. The rightful beneficiaries are left waiting with their dick in their hands. Shame on all these leeches to our society. I hope she gets harsh public ridicule at minimum. She's coined a new phrase - In Vitro Whore

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

I believe Beyond just got through saying or, at least, suggesting that the court's hands aren't tied to the letter of the law. Children do not need 'financial support' because a biological father they will likely never know the name or voice of has died before they drew first breath.

On the other hand, it does give my a pithy epithet: "pro-entitlement capitalism"

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

How ridiculous! It's people like her that give the whole system a bad rap. I'm not sure what to say about the court ruling tho. I'm no lawyer. Are their hands are tied and required to go by the letter? If so, then I guess we would just have to say that one slipped thru the cracks and get rules amended right away. Then she would be denied upon her next review. As you probably remember, I am a new recipient of ssdi, so I can only speak intelligently about those benefits. Disability is not guaranteed for life. Reviews come around 1,3, and 5-7 years, based on likeliness of recovery. I'm not sure about ssi, but I would say that it is not indefinite either. She's worse than the women who have nine damn kids on purpose just to get more benefits. It's sad. There are people out there that really need and deserve these benefits. From my experience the ssa is widely misunderstood as well. Although initially they are strict as to who gets their legal benefits, once they have determined that you do qualify, they try to get you the most money as quickly impossible. It's a slow process to get to that point because they have to weed out so many people like these trying to freeload and scam their way thru. The rightful beneficiaries are left waiting with their dick in their hands. Shame on all these leeches to our society. I hope she gets harsh public ridicule at minimum. She's coined a new phrase - In Vitro Whore

The lower courts are theoretically bound by the letter of the law and the opinions of superior courts. The Supreme Court is usually hesitant to go against the letter of the law unless you have a direct conflict with the Constitution, but in cases like this there is a logical argument that there is no controlling law because this situation was impossible to predict when the law was written (1939 & amended in '65) since the technology wasn't around then. In which case the Court generally relies on an interpretation of the laws intent. For example, first amendment protections extend to internet communication even though no specific law or constitutional amendment made it apply because it is logical that the intent of the first amendment is to protect speech and the press regardless of the technology used to convey it.

The real interesting thing is that the conservative leaning justices like Roberts, Scalia and Alito tend to put a lot of emphasis on the letter of the law and frequently criticize what they call "legislating from the bench" when judges do a lot of interpreting of intent. Yet it would seem that they would ideologically lean towards denying benefits. I'm not an expert on social security law so maybe there is a way for them to have their cake and eat it too. I'll have to listen to the lawyers present their arguments.

For a nerd like me this is like intellectual porn and this is just a little tease before the big argument over Bamacare which is easily going to be one of the most influential decisions that has happened in my lifetime for better or for worse. I'm so excited

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

How ridiculous! It's people like her that give the whole system a bad rap. I'm not sure what to say about the court ruling tho. I'm no lawyer. Are their hands are tied and required to go by the letter? If so, then I guess we would just have to say that one slipped thru the cracks and get rules amended right away. Then she would be denied upon her next review. As you probably remember, I am a new recipient of ssdi, so I can only speak intelligently about those benefits. Disability is not guaranteed for life. Reviews come around 1,3, and 5-7 years, based on likeliness of recovery. I'm not sure about ssi, but I would say that it is not indefinite either. She's worse than the women who have nine damn kids on purpose just to get more benefits. It's sad. There are people out there that really need and deserve these benefits. From my experience the ssa is widely misunderstood as well. Although initially they are strict as to who gets their legal benefits, once they have determined that you do qualify, they try to get you the most money as quickly impossible. It's a slow process to get to that point because they have to weed out so many people like these trying to freeload and scam their way thru. The rightful beneficiaries are left waiting with their dick in their hands. Shame on all these leeches to our society. I hope she gets harsh public ridicule at minimum. She's coined a new phrase - In Vitro Whore

The lower courts are theoretically bound by the letter of the law and the opinions of superior courts. The Supreme Court is usually hesitant to go against the letter of the law unless you have a direct conflict with the Constitution, but in cases like this there is a logical argument that there is no controlling law because this situation was impossible to predict when the law was written (1939 & amended in '65) since the technology wasn't around then. In which case the Court generally relies on an interpretation of the laws intent. For example, first amendment protections extend to internet communication even though no specific law or constitutional amendment made it apply because it is logical that the intent of the first amendment is to protect speech and the press regardless of the technology used to convey it.

The real interesting thing is that the conservative leaning justices like Roberts, Scalia and Alito tend to put a lot of emphasis on the letter of the law and frequently criticize what they call "legislating from the bench" when judges do a lot of interpreting of intent. Yet it would seem that they would ideologically lean towards denying benefits. I'm not an expert on social security law so maybe there is a way for them to have their cake and eat it too. I'll have to listen to the lawyers present their arguments.

For a nerd like me this is like intellectual porn and this is just a little tease before the big argument over Bamacare which is easily going to be one of the most influential decisions that has happened in my lifetime for better or for worse. I'm so excited

The social security guidelines are really not that complex. In fact they publish everything about it and you can find almost all of it online thru www.socialsecurity.gov and many independent sites for lawyers and applicants Q&A. From the day you apply you get mail and notifications informing you of how the process works. Once awarded they keep you well informed. The fact that her case made it this far proves how much too simple their guidelines are.

I got some catching up to do on the Bamacare. I get so caught up in science and religion, that i fall behind on politics.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

It's still his kid, and still entitled to all the benefits such a position entails.

Seriously dude? So do you think that any child conceived by any woman with his sperm should get those benefits? What's it matter who the mother is? They'll be selling dead guys' sperm like hotcakes.

No, that wont happen anymore than those who thought test tube babies would lead to government promoting a master race of liberal communist.

Same fear mongering brought to by the friendly minions of Fux News.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."ObamaCheck out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37

You don't register as much as a "nerd" in the sense of "Revenge of the Nerds" on my end

Or in any sense.

ed-note: for Beyond, not you Brian

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It's still his kid, and still entitled to all the benefits such a position entails.

"Hey guys... please stop asking for handouts! We're in an Everest of red as is..."

Nope. Granted, no one's forcing anyone else to see eye to eye with me or any other RRS'er, but when a government is bleeding out the asshole with debt, it's time to either amend domestic benefits/Social Security laws, or simply 'turn a blind eye' to Law's letter until something resembling fiscally sound government can be put back into action.

One thing's for sure; few except ignorant citizens are going to be oriented towards the US's concept of "SPEND, SPEND, SPEND damn your eyes!" after Crisis is over. At that, there isn't much of a reason to spend a year's entire tax intake in one year. You have to save for economically lean times.

edit; isn't this a bit of a reversal on your position of "don't reward mothers with socially engineered childbearing benefits for having a half-dozen of kids they can't financially provide for all in the name of booze/crack money"?

Y'know... attacking the law of mother's benefits for being a prolific and exploitative breeder?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Nah, that doesn't fly with me either. Say I got a few yrs left. I want my seed to carry on, but it just didn't happen in time or I can't handle the responsibilities. So I'll just leave some sperm behind and let society pay for my kids. No way.

And Mommy's got no excuse. If nobody wants to fuck 'er and raise kids with her and she has to get pregnant at the clinic, that's her fuckin' deal. If she says I want kids from his sperm only, then I either say "too bad" or "good luck". Either way, don't ask us to foot the bill. It might be different if we were an endangered species. The last I checked, there was no shortage of assholes in the world.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

Nah, that doesn't fly with me either. Say I got a few yrs left. I want my seed to carry on, but it just didn't happen in time or I can't handle the responsibilities. So I'll just leave some sperm behind and let society pay for my kids. No way.

And Mommy's got no excuse. If nobody wants to fuck 'er and raise kids with her and she has to get pregnant at the clinic, that's her fuckin' deal. If she says I want kids from his sperm only, then I either say "too bad" or "good luck". Either way, don't ask us to foot the bill. It might be different if we were an endangered species. The last I checked, there was no shortage of assholes in the world.

1st: fuck you, I'm an asshole, so is Dennis Leary.

Secondly, well... are we not an endangered species?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Denis Leary; one "n". Sorry, had to call you on that one. You know I love ya, Kapkao!

Also, he's a third-rate, joke/act stealer of the late Bill Hicks. Sure, Leary had his moments, but he straight up stole Bill's Austin, TX routine and many other pieces of his performances when he first started his career in stand-up. His bit about coffee-flavored coffee on the "Lock N' Load" act was pretty amusing, though, because it was his own shit, but anyway. I am an asshole just like him, just like you; we get those feelings deep down in the cockles on our hearts, we drive ultra slow in the ultra fast lane, we piss on toilet seats and walk around in the summer saying "how about this heat?" Ahh, yes...

I also think we're mentally endangered as a species, much like "Idiocracy," but we're in no short supply of people as the world will kindly point out every time you turn on your television or surf the web and find more nonsensical banter that people continue to go full circle with and perpetuate futility due to a lack of understanding and civility that will swirl to such a teeming mass of unadulterated horseshit that the sky will eventually rain diarrhea since there will be no other place for all the crap to go.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me

Denis Leary; one "n". Sorry, had to call you on that one. You know I love ya, Kapkao!

Also, he's a third-rate, joke/act stealer of the late Bill Hicks. Sure, Leary had his moments, but he straight up stole Bill's Austin, TX routine and many other pieces of his performances when he first started his career in stand-up. His bit about coffee-flavored coffee on the "Lock N' Load" act was pretty amusing, though, because it was his own shit, but anyway. I am an asshole just like him, just like you; we get those feelings deep down in the cockles on our hearts, we drive ultra slow in the ultra fast lane, we piss on toilet seats and walk around in the summer saying "how about this heat?" Ahh, yes...

I also think we're mentally endangered as a species, much like "Idiocracy," but we're in no short supply of people as the world will kindly point out every time you turn on your television or surf the web and find more nonsensical banter that people continue to go full circle with and perpetuate futility due to a lack of understanding and civility that will swirl to such a teeming mass of unadulterated horseshit that the sky will eventually rain diarrhea since there will be no other place for all the crap to go.

Requesting full usage rights to the "raining diarrhea" bit. ......brought to you by Carl's Jr.

"...but truth is a point of view, and so it is changeable. And to rule by fettering the mind through fear of punishment in another world is just as base as to use force." -Hypatia

I have a sneaky feeling this was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but even if it wasnt -population explosion has a nifty habit of causing extinction. Kthx. Yes, you do eventually run out of arable land, but that's before the most heavily 'vegetative' terrains are deforested. That's a bit of a CO2 problem in itself.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It's still his kid, and still entitled to all the benefits such a position entails.

Seriously dude? So do you think that any child conceived by any woman with his sperm should get those benefits? What's it matter who the mother is? They'll be selling dead guys' sperm like hotcakes.

So? The world changes. We adapt. This will hardly be the end of society. The fact remains that it's his kid, and noone has any argument to contradict that fact. If he doesn't want benefits, he EARNED, being transferred to children conceived in such a way he's fully capable of writing such into his will.

What I think is 'funny', and also irrational, is that most people I chatted online/spoken with... think a population crisis is merely about "running out of places to live in" or running out of "breathing room" or make a fallacy of assumption believing that I refer to the Nazi concept of "lebensraum" (living space). They just don't get it.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

It's still his kid, and still entitled to all the benefits such a position entails.

Seriously dude? So do you think that any child conceived by any woman with his sperm should get those benefits? What's it matter who the mother is? They'll be selling dead guys' sperm like hotcakes.

So? The world changes. We adapt. This will hardly be the end of society. The fact remains that it's his kid, and noone has any argument to contradict that fact. If he doesn't want benefits, he EARNED, being transferred to children conceived in such a way he's fully capable of writing such into his will.

Bucky Noone is a bogan singer from Austrailia...

Bright Noone is a soccer/footballer from UK. etc

Sorry, that's Peter Noone, from England. My mistake

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

My point is that the second enough women abuse this to cause any significant strain on society, it'll be shut down. It'll affect at most four generations, and not the entirety of any. Not even a majority. First, not every woman will be interested in impregnating themselves with some guys sperm just because the kid will have a piece of the benefit pie. Second, not every woman will have access to sperm that would have value. Third, companies and governments are very quick to save themselves money, and will immediately rephrase all their documentation to limit the strain on themselves. Shrinking the value of doing it in the first place. What's the point of having 1/1000th of a benefit pool designed for a family of four?
I could go on...

My point is that the second enough women abuse this to cause any significant strain on society, it'll be shut down. It'll affect at most four generations, and not the entirety of any. Not even a majority. First, not every woman will be interested in impregnating themselves with some guys sperm just because the kid will have a piece of the benefit pie. Second, not every woman will have access to sperm that would have value. Third, companies and governments are very quick to save themselves money, and will immediately rephrase all their documentation to limit the strain on themselves. Shrinking the value of doing it in the first place. What's the point of having 1/1000th of a benefit pool designed for a family of four? I could go on...

"odds" have not stopped any booze hounds or crack whores from becoming mass-breeders, to my knowledge.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

And how have they destroyed society, exactly? I don't see them on every street. In fact, it's generally the most affluent who partake in such activity. And populations are in the decline in the west, when excluding immigrants, so your argument fails on that count as well.
More money is wasted on war in a month than is spent in ten years on your so-called plague of society.

Based on the justices line of questioning it seems they are inclined to leave the definition of "child" up to state intestacy law, which is how it is determined whether children born out of wedlock, step-children or adopted children qualify. In this particular case the children do not qualify as the father's heir under state law, so if that is how they rule the Mrs. Capato is SOL, but it is theoretically possible that a state could pass a law making such children legal heirs of the father's estate then they would qualify for benefits. I don't know if there are any states that extend intestacy rights that far.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Based on the justices line of questioning it seems they are inclined to leave the definition of "child" up to state intestacy law, which is how it is determined whether children born out of wedlock, step-children or adopted children qualify. In this particular case the children do not qualify as the father's heir under state law, so if that is how they rule the Mrs. Capato is SOL, but it is theoretically possible that a state could pass a law making such children legal heirs of the father's estate then they would qualify for benefits. I don't know if there are any states that extend intestacy rights that far.

Which would effectively render this one 'issue' moot, null and void. I would suggest that any state that effectively legislates child support into law based on AI pregnancies would see OBGyn clinics implode over night, but I don't care to underestimate the stupidity of the human race.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

I have a sneaky feeling this was a tongue-in-cheek remark, but even if it wasnt -population explosion has a nifty habit of causing extinction. Kthx. Yes, you do eventually run out of arable land, but that's before the most heavily 'vegetative' terrains are deforested. That's a bit of a CO2 problem in itself.

With me, everything is pretty comedic unless such a hard-hitting issue arises that it warrants me busting out the musty tome of absolute knowledge. I try to think on my feet rather than act like a debater most of the time because there's no real winning in going back and forth; just attempts to knock each other down a few pegs by making affirmations that you're less of an idiot than them. I just try to lighten the mood and do my best to pay homage to those that have become successful in spreading the true nature of humanity through jokes and observations (Sam Kinison, Lenny Bruce, Bill Hicks, George Carlin, Richard Pryor, etc.)

On another note, you always get tired of "nonsensical comments" and "more proof/data/evidence." Why? This seems to be directed at Vastet and myself, but it might stem further than that. Let's say you get your way and I put on my "think hard" glasses and recite textbooks verbatim to prove my point to suit your Oxford professor requests; would that make you happy? Would that create enough of a suitable forum setting for you? Even if it did, we'd probably still get that snarky demeanor from you regardless so, there's really no point. If you see truth in comments, there's no problem regardless of where the opinion came from, but if it looks like bullshit to you, then prove me or whoever wrong with your OWN facts countering what I or they have to say, tongue-in-cheek or not. I really don't mind. However, don't say that someone isn't providing enough evidence or facts to satisfy you when you yourself don't extend the same courtesy most of the time.

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me

The flawed concept here is that people(especially women) have the unconditionally right to breed whenever and with whomever they want. But then at the same time the offspring becomes the financial responsibility of society. Basically it's like having a wife that tells you she can fuck other guys but you have to pay for the kids if she gets pregnant. And the men with guns backs her up.

We regulate everything else in society, you have to get a permit or permission to do nearly anything, except of course breeding. If we're going to have a society with social contracts, part of the contract is going to have to be to get permission from the rest of society to breed. This case is like Octomom and technology is just going to make it worse.

I'm just so sick of this fucking precious right to breed and then stick me with the bill. This woman needs jail not checks in mail.

Just another example of rights without responsibility bankrupting and destroying society.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca

With me, everything is pretty comedic unless such a hard-hitting issue arises that it warrants me busting out the musty tome of absolute knowledge.

I must have missed the punchline...

Quote:

On another note, you always get tired of "nonsensical comments" and "more proof/data/evidence." Why? This seems to be directed at Vastet and myself, but it might stem further than that. Let's say you get your way and I put on my "think hard" glasses and recite textbooks verbatim to prove my point to suit your Oxford professor requests; would that make you happy?

Nice strawman and red herring. As is common with twitch gamers (does their attention span even reach beyond 5 minutes?) most of what I see coming from either of y'alls keyboards is mostly a question of stroking one's ego. No, Pineapple is not an exception. Vastet is unique in his debate style in how he likes to bait people with a crescendo of fallacies that reach a mile high then mock/insult them when they bite. The one exception I've seen so far is his comments on Pineapple's CERN neutrino experiment. There may be more.

Quote:

Would that create enough of a suitable forum setting for you? Even if it did, we'd probably still get that snarky demeanor from you regardless so, there's really no point.

Snark is what I specialize in + again, nice strawman. Last I checked, RRS was setup in the fashion of 'challenging another person's claims'. The claims I see made prattled about on the forums from you two are vacuum-hollow -they aren't even claims so much as provocative, patent falsehoods. Vastet himself has admitted he "learned how to troll" from theists and later passively indicated he stops by the forums to troll people.

Quote:

but if it looks like bullshit to you, then prove me or whoever wrong with your OWN facts countering what I or they have to say, tongue-in-cheek or not.

Sorry, you don't have any compelling power over me, and I don't feel any particular obligation to provide facts to challenge substance-free shenanigans. I will challenge whatever "nonsensical" claim I wish, kthx.

Quote:

I really don't mind. However, don't say that someone isn't providing enough evidence or facts to satisfy you when you yourself don't extend the same courtesy most of the time.

Moot point, red herring and a 3rd strawman. You might make a high score YET! I said no such thing, here. I was thinking a challenge/appeal to empiricism was self-evident, but I guess not. Someone makes a legible claim on RRS, it gets a challenge for data and (maybe) soundness. EoS.

Quote:

Damn right, you best come correct next time, boy!

Sage, assuming you have one... don't quit your day job.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)

Then allow the cocktail waitress to refill your glass; there will be many quips coming up that even you can comprehend.

Quote:

kapkao wrote: Nice strawman and red herring. As is common with twitch gamers (does their attention span even reach beyond 5 minutes?) most of what I see coming from either of y'alls keyboards is mostly a question of stroking one's ego. No, Pineapple is not an exception. Vastet is unique in his debate style in how he likes to bait people with a crescendo of fallacies that reach a mile high then mock/insult them when they bite. The one exception I've seen so far is his comments on Pineapple's CERN neutrino experiment. There may be more.

Another thing I noticed; you use fallacy attacks, too. I enjoy that. It's what certain individuals do when there really isn't anything else credible to add. I'll allow Mr. Montoya to summarize for me...

Quote:

Snark is what I specialize in + again, nice strawman. Last I checked, RRS was setup in the fashion of 'challenging another person's claims'. The claims I see made prattled about on the forums from you two are vacuum-hollow -they aren't even claims so much as provocative, patent falsehoods. Vastet himself has admitted he "learned how to troll" from theists and later passively indicated he stops by the forums to troll people.

There you go again; that fallacy talk I love so much. It's adorable. Disregarding all of that, you can try to break down my character in whatever silly social paradigms you want to concoct, but I already explained that I don't debate or take a lot of issues to heart as hard nosed as you do unless it's one of those situations that I think deserves deeper, serious discussion aside from my normally jovial personality complete with harmlessly fun sarcasm as opposed to your sometimes insulting, passive-aggressive innuendos that come off as less snarky and more as someone that displays condescension without a trace of humor.

Quote:

Sorry, you don't have any compelling power over me, and I don't feel any particular obligation to provide facts to challenge substance-free shenanigans. I will challenge whatever "nonsensical" claim I wish, kthx.

So, you're essentially just flinging bullshit, telling other people to "go hard or go home" and you can't even live up to your own expectations. Brilliant. Challenge whatever you wish, but as far as "vacuum-hollow" goes, are you sure that wasn't a statement directed at yourself? If not, then you're in the running with Vastet and I since, and I'm just guessing here, you have about as much running credibility as we do based on your observable "standards," but I'm pretty sure you'll refute that with more nonsense so, kthxbailollmfaoroflbbqmayo.

Quote:

Moot point, red herring and a 3rd strawman. You might make a high score YET! I said no such thing, here. I was thinking a challenge/appeal to empiricism was self-evident, but I guess not. Someone makes a legible claim on RRS, it gets a challenge for data and (maybe) soundness. EoS.

Kapkao:*grumble grumble* Fallacies...*grumble grumble*....damn nonsensical crap....hrmph....*drools a little* "I'm awake! I sense...a comment that needs my expertise...it needs to be...FUCKED WITH BY ME!!! I will provide very limited, if not ZERO, concrete evidence to refute any of this, I shall make gestures that illustrate my boredom and I will comment that this opinion needs to become more solid. At the same time, I will ignore the fact that it is only an opinion, but STILL go on and on about it and repeatedly not post anything related to the topic at hand except my own opinion; just as this person has done! I'm one clever son of a bitch, so clever, in fact, that I just shat myself from excitement! Martha, hold all my calls; I need some alone time... *grabs lotion, crash helmet and bite plate for maximum effect*

Well, not EXACTLY how I envision things, but...

"When the majority believes in what is false, the truth becomes a quest." - Me

Another thing I noticed; you use fallacy attacks, too. I enjoy that. It's what certain individuals do when there really isn't anything else credible to add.

Ah, so you admit neither of you bring anything to the table, as far as discussions go around here. K, glad we see eye-to-eye. Were you expecting a rise out of me? Just curious... cuz I don't see it happening.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)